St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-06-17
THE TICKET BOYCOTT.
1t Comes Up Before the Inter-
state Commission

WASHINGTON. June 16.-The room
set apart by the interstate commerce
commission for public hearings was COM
pletely filled to-day with counsel, wit
nesseS and other persons interested in
the decision of the commission upon the
complaint of the Chicago Il Alton Rail
road company against the Pennsylvania
Railroad company. There We're pres
ent General COunSelS Scott and Brooks.
OF the Pennsylvania. Mr.. Hayden and
Frank LOOMS. of the New York Cen
tral, Vice President and General Man
ager Chapel. Mr.. Charlton. general
passenger agent, and MesSrs. Oates and
Brown, counsel for the Chicago &
Alton. and many other persons. The
burden of the complaint. as explained
to the commission by Mr.. Brown in be-
half the Chicago II Alton. is that the
PENNSYLVANIA Railroad company and
the Pennsylvania company have
violated the interstate law in
three particulars. In the first
place it is alleged that the
PENNSYLVANIA company has refused to
accede to the complainant equal facili-
ties and advantages with other roads.
In the second place it has subjected the
complainant to disadvantages and in
the third place it is charged that the
defendants have not afforded all reason
able facilities for the Interchange of
traffic and passengers. Therefore the
cOmplainantS ask that the PENNSYLVANIA
Railroad company and the Pennsylvania
company be required by the commission
to afford the facilities. After Mr..
Brown had explained the nature of the
complaint. Mr. Scott stated the position
of the Pennsylvania Railroad company.
giving in detail
HISTORY OF THE NEGOTIATIONS
between the companies leading up to
the refusal to exchange traffic. He held
that the commission hold as the supreme
court had held in the case OF the
AtchiSon, Topeka Il Santa Fee versus
the Denver IL New Orleans. that road
is not bound to ago beyond its own
lines for the. purpose of making
facilities. The question simply stated,
was. whether it is reasonable
regulation for the Pennsylvania railroad
or any other company to make a rule
not. to sell their continuous tickets to
Kansas City Or any other point. 1t must
insist that officers of the other lines
shall agree that they will not tempt the
pennsylvania officers by the offer of
commissions. The broad general cues
ton was whether the commission would
enable few lines to continue a system
which can only result in actual demoral-
lZatlon among the officers of other COM
panleS. When these general statements
had been made there was some discus
sion between counsel touching the ad-
mission of certain facts by both sides to
facilitate disposition of the case In
answer to Mr.. Brown. the Pennsylvania
Railroad company, through Mr.. Brooks,
admitted that it had sold through tickets
over the Chicago, Burlington d Quincy
and the Missouri Pacific railroads dur
ing the period of time between April 5
and May ), 1887; that the Chicago, Bur-
IngtOn d Quincy chad not formally
signed an agreement on the first-named
date. although it had telegraphed its in
tentIOn of doing so, and that the Missouri
Pacific had not signed the agreement
when the tickets were sold over its
lines. 1t was explained that the sale of
through tickets had been ordered off
because the Missouri Pacific had de
clined to sign the agreement according
to the personal arrangement that had
been made. Mr.. Scott inquired of Mr..
Brown if he would admit that the Chi
cago IL Alton had
INSISTED UPON A THREAT
to pay commissions to the agents of the
Pennsylvania for the sale of it's tickets,
Mr.. Brown said that he would make no
Sneh admission.
Mr.. Scott-Well, we will prove it.
VIII you agree to insist upon that right?
Mr.. Brown declined to speak for the
management of the Chicago 81 Alton.
Mr.. Scott-That is the kernel of the
matter. If you will make that agree
ment we will sell you tickets.
Mr.. Brown having admitted that the
company had refused to sign the agree
ment, Mr.. Brooks put it in evidence,
reading paragraph to show it bound
the roads to refrain from the payment
of commissions. Mr.. Schoonmaker in
qulred If Mr.. Brown claimed the right
to pay commissions upon sales
of tickets: He replied that
he claimed the right to pay anybody for
services rendered the Chicago & Alton,
and to say whether it shall pay by sal
airy or commission. President Roberts
was sworn. He said that he had found
the practice of paying commissions to
be great wrong to the public and an
evil IN railroad management. 1t had
been found that it was impossible to Sc
cure fair treatment Of all railroads by
the agents when one line paid So and
another So for the same ticket. The
pennsylvania company wished to treat
all roads alike, and the sole reason for
refusing to sell the tickets of the Chi
cago & Alton, was the declination of
that company to agree not to interfere
with the agents of the PENNSYLVANIA.
Witness believed that 20 or so per cent.
of the railroads of the country were of
the same mind as the PENNSYLVANIA
company in refusing to pay commissions.
In 1888 the company had discharged
very important agent and had sDent
Sl2O,N0 in trying to abolish commits
siOnS.
The next witness called by the Penn
Sylvania railroad counsel was George r..
Blanchard, commissioner of the Central
Traffic association, with headquarters at
Chicago. He said he was certain of the
evil result of the payment of passenger
commissions. The practice had gone
SO far that cases had been known where
the agents made arrangements with CON
ductors by which the tickets were not
punched but were resold to the agents.
The scalpers were paid fees by
commissioners and their offices
were the hotbed, the brood nests,
of every form of railway corruption.
The witness was about to describe the
extent of this corruption, but as his
knowledge was based upon detectives
reports the testimony was not regarded
as competent. Witness thought that